Is it worth being a scientist these days

[N5soulkishin]

Hello everyone, I've always wondered what it would like to be a biochemist or physicist, since both fields have fascinated me ever since i was 7. 5 years later, after seeing numerous post on this forum and about 4 others I've began to question my desire to be a scientist. I'd like to hear some people about their end of this problem with discouraging young and upcoming scientists' (in about a couple years or so). Please no arguments about "scientist rarely do it for the money", because i know about that but the community is disrupting that balance, so please state your honest opinions.

thanks in advance.

p.s
this is mostly for a career project... and i want an answer

 

[jimmyly]

i am entering university next fall so i don't have enough knowledge yet but i have a few things i can say.

1. what does 'is it worth it' mean? everyone has different values in life so this is a very hard question to answer. A lot of people will say its not worth it because of all the time and effort you have to put in without a lot of money to show for it in the end. while you can work for those 10 years and be making money and gaining experience.
On the other hand, a lot of people don't need a lot of money and it is worth it for them just to get that education and slave away until they can land a permanent position which again isn't a guarantee. They do it for passion. the discovery. the thrill of knowing something that most of the world does not

i know you clarified that you know the whole passion vs money thing. but what i am trying to get at is that money IS a big decision maker for the majority of people. When its time to make a decision, everyone will always ask themselves, " Will I be happy doing this?" ,"Will I make enough to live?" i don't think scientists are the type to ask themselves "will this make me rich?", This is something a "non-scientist" would ask themselves, which brings me back to the type of people who would think it is not worth it to become a scientist.

2. it is very tough. not everyone is willing to work hard each and everyday. there's so many things they would rather be doing then to spend half of their lives in school. we only get to live for a small amount of time and most people just don't want to study. so for them no its not worth it.

you see your question like almost everything in life is subjective. Since you are doing this for a project. i suggest you try to put yourself in other people's shoes and try to explore other views. And maybe this will help you out in the future when look for a job or deciding on a degree.

 

[N5soulkishin]

Thank you for your input. what i mean by worth it i mean would i regret becoming a scientist after finding there are no positions after going through 10+ years of schooling and if there are enough jobs for scientists

 

[Vanadium 50]

Schooling won't guarantee you a job in ANY field. That's just how it is.

 

[jimmyly]

Thank you for your input. what i mean by worth it i mean would i regret becoming a scientist after finding there are no positions after going through 10+ years of schooling and if there are enough jobs for scientists

Would you?

Again, this is very subjective.
For me personally, After i am done with physics or geology(i plan on eventually getting a phd in one of the two, not sure what i want to get into yet) if i do not end up with a job related to those areas, i would still think it was worth it. Why? because i don't see it as time wasted. my values, and my views on life is extremely different than others(definitely won't get into it). and if there ARE enough jobs for scientists, then great nothing will change. But regardless of the outcome, i will enjoy my time studying and learning. That's just my views.

Also, i do believe that even if there are enough jobs for scientists, more people will definitely pursue this path. BUT i do not think it will make a huge difference simply because what i said before about how people don't want to spend half their lives in school, or to them science is boring. Plus, its extremely difficult! just because the job prospects are good does not necessarily mean more people will go into the field. Everyone knows that being an Engineer, or a Doctor or Dentist are very employable with extremely well pay. But yet, the majority of people would rather be doing other things that require less work. This is just how our society works nowadays. People are lazy, and do not want to go through all that hard work. The truth is... anyone can become anything they want. Seriously! all it takes is dedication and hardwork. Two things which are lacking these days.[correction] not these days, but always have been lacking

 

[ParticleGrl]

To the original poster, most science phds I know were unable to get jobs in science and feel like they would have been better served studying engineering. After a physics phd, I did a stint in the service industry before I found more gainful employment. I'm currently employed with a consulting company doing analytics stuff, before that I was doing similar work for an insurance company.

Most scientists in the country are graduate students whose careers in science will not last for very long after finishing their phd. It might be best to think of science less as a career and more as time away from a career/the real world.

Schooling won't guarantee you a job in ANY field. That's just how it is.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't play the odds- get a medical school degree in the US and you are almost certain to be able to become a doctor. Same with an engineering degree,etc.

Whereas getting a phd or a law degree and you most likely will not continue in your field- we should be upfront with students entering these schools "the majority of our graduates leave X shortly after finishing their degree" should be part of the sales pitch.

The truth is... anyone can become anything they want. Seriously! all it takes is dedication and hardwork. Two things which are lacking these days.[correction] not these days, but always have been lacking

I don't think you've yet encountered the real world. Most people who get phds in the sciences are very dedicated, and worked very hard, and ended up outside of science. You should only pursue a phd if you are fine with dedicating many years to your life, working hard, etc, and then ending up outside of science due to factors totally outside your control. Things like the funding climate, etc can have more impact on your career than anything you have control over.

 

[3.141592]

You should only pursue a phd if you are fine with dedicating many years to your life, working hard, etc, and then ending up outside of science due to factors totally outside your control. Things like the funding climate, etc can have more impact on your career than anything you have control over.

I think this is quite correct. The advice in my (old) field - philosophy - on this matter is always this: if you cannot imagine being happy doing anything else then pursue philosophy as a career. Otherwise, don't.

SHORT ADVICE: There is nothing wrong with, and much to be said for, going to uni for 3 or 4 years doing something you love until you're 21/22, surrounded by peers who share your passion, learning from experts, and getting an education, as opposed to a vocational training. But that is a lot different to 7 to 10 years of the above until you're 25/28.

LONG ADVICE: I did my undergraduate and my MA in philosophy with a single-minded determination to get a PhD in it and then a uni job. I knew the low chance of a permanent job, the low pay, the lost-earnings while studying, the total lack of respect from everyone outside the field etc. and didn't care.

By the time I finished my MA I was 27 and something happened: I suddenly realized that all that stuff that had driven me before was far less important. Now I cared much more about a stable, long-term relationship, getting on the property ladder, a pension, having disposable income etc. They will weigh much more heavily at the age you begin looking for work after your PhD than when you decide to start it.

Anecdotally, a woman I know did one undergraduate in business and went straight to work in business. She enjoys her job but probably does not identify with it as a 'marketing manager' the way you might as a 'scientist'. She was on £100 000 a year for a while. She took a job with a 50% pay cut so she could spend the time writing a novel. That 50% wage cut still meant she earned more than most workers in the UK. She is 33. And now back in a job paying £75 000.

Contra a friend who did his undergraduate and master's degree in literature and writing. He has written a novel and is trying to rewrite it after review to get it published. Writing is his identity and life. He earns £15 000 in a temporary job that he absolutely detests, and gets no benefits of any kind, and is, like all the temps there, subject to instant dismissal with no reason needed. He tells me daily he hates his life. The only thing that makes it more bearable is saying how 'ignorant' corporate types are and how he has not 'sold out' etc.

You judge which life you'd rather have.

So, although not quite feasible to earn lots, save, then take time out to 'do science', unlike writing a book, the point is - although I except this anecdote is likely to be a rarity: you can do a job that is quite enjoyable, even if it is not your calling, and still find time to pursue things you love. It's not either/or.

 

[clope023]

To the original poster, most science phds I know were unable to get jobs in science and feel like they would have been better served studying engineering. After a physics phd, I did a stint in the service industry before I found more gainful employment. I'm currently employed with a consulting company doing analytics stuff, before that I was doing similar work for an insurance company.

Most scientists in the country are graduate students whose careers in science will not last for very long after finishing their phd. It might be best to think of science less as a career and more as time away from a career/the real world.
But that doesn't mean you shouldn't play the odds- get a medical school degree in the US and you are almost certain to be able to become a doctor. Same with an engineering degree,etc.

Whereas getting a phd or a law degree and you most likely will not continue in your field- we should be upfront with students entering these schools "the majority of our graduates leave X shortly after finishing their degree" should be part of the sales pitch.
I don't think you've yet encountered the real world. Most people who get phds in the sciences are very dedicated, and worked very hard, and ended up outside of science. You should only pursue a phd if you are fine with dedicating many years to your life, working hard, etc, and then ending up outside of science due to factors totally outside your control. Things like the funding climate, etc can have more impact on your career than anything you have control over.

I think this depends on what you get your phd in, you did particle theory so it stands to reason funding would kill a lot of your potential academic or research jobs, this did not seem to hold true with the plasma physicists I met and spoke with over the weekend. Their experimental skills seemed to serve well keeping them employed whether that be fusion, diagnostics, or even device fabrication; so they're still working on science or a closely related engineering topic. I'm just an undergrad mind you but it seemed the more applied or experimental your research is the more transferable your skills are to other fields which helps land science and engineering jobs.

 

[Locrian]

...this did not seem to hold true with the plasma physicists I met and spoke with over the weekend. Their experimental skills seemed to serve well keeping them employed whether that be fusion, diagnostics, or even device fabrication; so they're still working on science or a closely related engineering topic.

So, to be clear here, 100% of the people you met who currently work as scientists. . . currently work as scientists?

Did you also take the time to meet the people who got similar degrees and do not work as scientists?

What exactly is your anecdote measuring?

 

[Locrian]

For the record, 0% of the people I meet who work at insurance companies and got scientific degrees work in science.

EXTRAPOLATE!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[StatGuy2000]

To the original poster, most science phds I know were unable to get jobs in science and feel like they would have been better served studying engineering. After a physics phd, I did a stint in the service industry before I found more gainful employment. I'm currently employed with a consulting company doing analytics stuff, before that I was doing similar work for an insurance company.

Most scientists in the country are graduate students whose careers in science will not last for very long after finishing their phd. It might be best to think of science less as a career and more as time away from a career/the real world.
But that doesn't mean you shouldn't play the odds- get a medical school degree in the US and you are almost certain to be able to become a doctor. Same with an engineering degree,etc.

Whereas getting a phd or a law degree and you most likely will not continue in your field- we should be upfront with students entering these schools "the majority of our graduates leave X shortly after finishing their degree" should be part of the sales pitch.
I don't think you've yet encountered the real world. Most people who get phds in the sciences are very dedicated, and worked very hard, and ended up outside of science. You should only pursue a phd if you are fine with dedicating many years to your life, working hard, etc, and then ending up outside of science due to factors totally outside your control. Things like the funding climate, etc can have more impact on your career than anything you have control over.

I think the short answer that you (and Locrian) are giving to the OP is that pursuing a graduate degree in science (or at least a theoretical physics PhD, your chosen area of study) is simply not worth it as far as careers are concerned. i.e. physics degrees are for suckers.

 

[ModusPwnd]

I wanted to be a scientist my whole life. I just wasnt smart enough or good enough to make it all the way. There are very, very few jobs doing 'science'. Very few. Getting one is similar to getting a music recording contract or a pro athlete contract. Its just not going to happen for the vast majority of people who attempt it. Most people who get PhDs never do science professionally after graduating and most people with science BS degrees don't do anything even technical, engineering or science related at all.

 

[Rika]

I wanted to be a scientist my whole life. I just wasnt smart enough or good enough to make it all the way.

Dude but science is not music or sport. To tell you the truth - I believe that music and sport is more "fair' career than science. Because - do you honestly believe that people from top schools with many papers published under their belt were "not good enough"?

Science is very very ugly in matter of talent/luck ratio. You may be talented, intelligent, hard-working and so on and waste your whole life because you won't be lucky enough to make a breakthrough.

In sports or music your individual abilities are very important. But science is a teamwork. Because of that you are dommed to be "member of 1000 people science team". So all glory is for da boss. Think about postdocs as ghostwriters.

You shouldn't compare science to music or sport. Because nature of careers in those fields are fundamentally different.

 

[ModusPwnd]

You shouldn't compare science to music or sport. Because nature of careers in those fields are fundamentally different.

You shouldn't be patronizing. I do compare them because I believe the comparison is apt. Yes, all careers are different at some fundamental level. That doesn't negate a comparison...

 

[Choppy]

It's great work, if you can get it.

Science, by its very nature, involves stepping into the unknown. There is no guarantee that you will be successful with an investigation. Sometimes you pursue what seems like a great idea at the time only to fall on your face and get a null result. Sometimes some curious little behavior that you didn't really think was all that important can turn out to be a game changer. In a lot of ways the career of a scientist parallels this.

Getting a PhD is a lot of work. It requires a lot of time investment, and has a high opportunity cost. And it won't work for you once you have it. Some people get lucky, work on something that turns out to be a hot topic years down the road and have a relatively easy time finding a job. Others find that their PhD thesis is really a dead end, or the topic has become obsolete.

But there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, if you look at the available data, people with PhDs in scinence (particularly in physics) tend to do quite well in the workforce wherever they end up.

Second, you have to be aware of selection bias when reading internet forums. People who are generally happy with their career choices tend not to post often about how great their lives are.

Third, an education itself has value. It can present you with opportunities (other than just financial) that you wouldn't otherwise have had. It can also give you a unique perspective on and understanding of the world. So can "life experience" of course. But working through a PhD is a rather intense "life experience."

 

[chill_factor]

I wanted to be a scientist my whole life. I just wasnt smart enough or good enough to make it all the way. There are very, very few jobs doing 'science'. Very few. Getting one is similar to getting a music recording contract or a pro athlete contract. Its just not going to happen for the vast majority of people who attempt it. Most people who get PhDs never do science professionally after graduating and most people with science BS degrees don't do anything even technical, engineering or science related at all.

there are very few in physics but there are other sciences out there, physicists just don't want to admit it =). You can definitely get a job in science with a PhD in science if your PhD was Analytical Chemistry. Does that information help anyone here in any way... no because everyone here wants to do theoretical physics.

 

[atyy]

Since the OP asked about biochemistry, an interesting set of views is given in http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.or...s_issues/articles/2012_06_22/caredit.a1200069

 

[StatGuy2000]

I think the short answer that you (and Locrian) are giving to the OP is that pursuing a graduate degree in science (or at least a theoretical physics PhD, your chosen area of study) is simply not worth it as far as careers are concerned. i.e. physics degrees are for suckers.

I suppose I should clarify my response here. I personally do not necessarily believe that a physics degree is worthless (disclaimer: I do not come from a physics background myself -- as my handle makes clear, I'm a statistician).

As others have pointed out, there is an issue of selection bias, as those who are satisfied with their career choices are unlikely to be posting here in this forum. And at least anecdotally, the people that I know personally who have studied physics have done rather well for themselves career-wise (one of my good friends studied physics in undergrad, pursued a PhD in applied math, and is now working as a bioinformatics researcher at a major teaching hospital here in Canada). And studying physics, or any science program for that matter, has intrinsic value in itself in terms of gaining a better understanding of the way the world works at a much deeper level than perhaps any other way.

That being said, if your sole concern is whether studying science will lead to a lucrative career -- well, there's no guarantee of that. And there is a greater probability that a degree in engineering (depending on what field of engineering) or medicine will lead to a path to secure employment.

So is studying science really worth it? There is no simple answer about this.

 

[Rika]

Does that information help anyone here in any way... no because everyone here wants to do theoretical physics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfxfnokQuLM

 

[atyy]

And studying physics, or any science program for that matter, has intrinsic value in itself in terms of gaining a better understanding of the way the world works at a much deeper level than perhaps any other way.

That being said, if your sole concern is whether studying science will lead to a lucrative career -- well, there's no guarantee of that. And there is a greater probability that a degree in engineering (depending on what field of engineering) or medicine will lead to a path to secure employment.

So is studying science really worth it? There is no simple answer about this.

Also, medicine and engineering involve science, so it doesn't seem that studying them means not studying science.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I think the short answer that you (and Locrian) are giving to the OP is that pursuing a graduate degree in science (or at least a theoretical physics PhD, your chosen area of study) is simply not worth it as far as careers are concerned. i.e. physics degrees are for suckers.

It depends on what you want. If you desperately want to make some contribution to science, a phd is probably your only way. You'll work long hours, but the works is fun, you'll meet a lot of smart people, etc. However, you most likely won't get to have a scientific 'career' in the traditional sense of the word. You'll do some postdoc work after your phd, and then you'll leave science.

I think there is an unspoken assumption in the question "is it worth being a scientist"- the better question "is it worth TRYING to be a scientist?"

Also, I'm not saying that people who study science do poorly- I'm saying that people who study physics rarely do science for a living.

If your end goal is a job in the traditional science/tech industry, you are better off with an engineering degree. What you expect to get out of your education matters. For instance, if your utility preference of job is "science > data analyst in insurance/finance/etc> IT > programming > engineering>else", then go for a science phd and you'll likely be happy in one of the fallbacks.

However, if you want "science>engineering>else", then utilitarianism suggests you should get an engineering degree.

Second, you have to be aware of selection bias when reading internet forums. People who are generally happy with their career choices tend not to post often about how great their lives are.

I would actually assume that selection bias goes the other way- i.e. people who still work in physics are more likely to spend time on a physics related forum than people who have left the field.

I make a conscious effort to come back here and post, partially to offset what I believed the selection bias to be, because I think my opinions are common among recent phds and fairly under-represented here.

 

[chill_factor]

Since the OP asked about biochemistry, an interesting set of views is given in http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.or...s_issues/articles/2012_06_22/caredit.a1200069

biochemistry is doing bad because it only has 2 industrial uses: supporting other academic biochemists through reagent manufacture, or pharmaceuticals.

that goes to show you what happens when you do stuff that's too narrow. the problem with chemistry is it gets bunched along with biology because that's where the research funding is at but jobs are not. many schools even deleted classes geared towards the traditional analytical/inorganic/physical tracks and stuffed the schedule with bio related electives.

 

[ParticleGrl]

that goes to show you what happens when you do stuff that's too narrow. the problem with chemistry is it gets bunched along with biology because that's where the research funding is at but jobs are not.

This doesn't make sense to me- generally I would think funding -> money -> jobs. Are you sure the inorganic chemistry market is as good as you think it is?

 

[pi-r8]

I think there is an unspoken assumption in the question "is it worth being a scientist"- the better question "is it worth TRYING to be a scientist?"

Also, I'm not saying that people who study science do poorly- I'm saying that people who study physics rarely do science for a living.

My opinion is that our science education- *especially* in physics- is just totally obsolete. It worked well in the past, when there was a lot of demand for people good at calculating things mentally or on paper because computers didn't exist yet. It worked during 40's and 50's, because a lot of technology was just in its infancy, so anyone with a basic understanding of electricity could work on it. And it sort of worked in the 70's-90's, when anyone with good analytical skills and basic math could be a programmer.

But now, all of those fields are well developed, and done by experts with years of training and experience. You can't just sit down and start working on new radar or operating systems just because you're a smart guy who's good at math- you need actual, field specific knowledge. And in physics you don't get any of that- you only get trained to be an academic physicist, and there just aren't enough jobs available for more than ~10% of physics students to do that.

So basically, no, in my opinion it is not worth trying to become a scientist at the present time. At least not unless you really would *enjoy* being a grad student, and you spend plenty of time developing skills/looking at other job options on the side.

 

[StatGuy2000]

This doesn't make sense to me- generally I would think funding -> money -> jobs. Are you sure the inorganic chemistry market is as good as you think it is?

chill factor may be best qualified to answer this, but perhaps the situation with biochemistry is where you have funding -> money -> postdoc jobs (supporting existing faculty, not tenure-track academic jobs nor industrial jobs).

Of course, I have absolutely no idea whether the inorganic chemistry market is any better either.

 

[atyy]

@StatGuy, how's the non-academic job market for statistics? After all, in a sense statistics is all of science - making model classes, collecting data and fitting them:)

I believe even "renormalization" in quantum field theory turned out to be something like a "fixed point" distribution, so that there is a renormalization proof of a weak form of the central limit theorem.

 

[chill_factor]

This doesn't make sense to me- generally I would think funding -> money -> jobs. Are you sure the inorganic chemistry market is as good as you think it is?

yep Statguy got it right. its funding -> money to postdocs -> postdoc jobs. There's only 1 industrial sector for non-academic jobs, which is the pharmaceutical industry, and that industry is not doing well. No other industries really use biochemistry. Pesticides and other plant life science products are relatively mature in terms of basic science and the problems there are in production and formulation.

 

[MarneMath]

@StatGuy, how's the non-academic job market for statistics? After all, in a sense statistics is all of science - making model classes, collecting data and fitting them:)

I believe even "renormalization" in quantum field theory turned out to be something like a "fixed point" distribution, so that there is a renormalization proof of a weak form of the central limit theorem.

Obviously not statguy2000, but we work in the same field. In my experience, job market for statistician is pretty stable. I've never had trouble finding a job or being asked to take a job. I started working doing financial mathematics type things and jumped my way to public health (think epidemiomologist). I'm probably one of the few people you'll met whose job title actually says "Mathematician Statistician". Overall, I've been happy with my experience and I'm probably closer to 'science' than a lot of people who got degrees in Physics, biology, and or chemistry, with only a masters in Stats. (Technically speaking, my job only requires a b.s)

 

[Zarqon]

I think it's an easy choice if you're able to look at a PhD degree as a win by itself, regardless of what job you get afterwards. If you're interested in the subject you'd do it in, and if you'd take pride in having a PhD title and enjoy the academic setting, then you gain something at any rate, and it's no loss doing a PhD. But if you ONLY do it to get a career out of it, then it's a risk, because as people have pointed out, there is luck involved in whether or not you will actually be able to achive a career with it.

 

[Locrian]

As others have pointed out, there is an issue of selection bias, as those who are satisfied with their career choices are unlikely to be posting here in this forum.

No way! I know I'm very happy with my career choices. Leaving physics is the smartest career choice I've ever made. ;)

 

[N5soulkishin]

Thank you everyone for their input, I've now reconsidered my career goals since my dreams have hit by reality. I'm now considering engineering :(

 

[StatGuy2000]

@StatGuy, how's the non-academic job market for statistics? After all, in a sense statistics is all of science - making model classes, collecting data and fitting them:)

I believe even "renormalization" in quantum field theory turned out to be something like a "fixed point" distribution, so that there is a renormalization proof of a weak form of the central limit theorem.

Hi there. The non-academic job market for statistics from what I can see is pretty good in Canada and the US (I'm based in Canada), especially in areas such as market research, finance, business consulting, health care, and (at least in the US) the pharmaceutical/biotechnology sectors.

That being said, I would like to disclose the fact that I am actively seeking work as of this moment, preferably in the Toronto area (a number of projects at my current place have dried up in the past couple of months, so I'm feeling a little less secure than before). If there is anyone on Physics Forums that can think of anything out there in statistics or analytics in Toronto, please feel free to PM me!

 

[ModusPwnd]

no because everyone here wants to do theoretical physics.

Maybe here in this forum... But my experience in school has been the opposite. Sure, freshman year plenty of people want to do particle and astro. But by the end of undergrad most of us were doing experimental or non-particle/astro theory research. In grad school most of my peers specifically avoided the HEP theory and the like because of the lack of marketability. Many, myself included, did research in more practical and what we hoped was more marketable areas. My lab was actually half chemists and half physicists so most of us were marketable to industry. Not to do science really though, to do engineering and be technicians.

 

[chill_factor]

Maybe here in this forum... But my experience in school has been the opposite. Sure, freshman year plenty of people want to do particle and astro. But by the end of undergrad most of us were doing experimental or non-particle/astro theory research. In grad school most of my peers specifically avoided the HEP theory and the like because of the lack of marketability. Many, myself included, did research in more practical and what we hoped was more marketable areas. My lab was actually half chemists and half physicists so most of us were marketable to industry. Not to do science really though, to do engineering and be technicians.

yep in grad school what I find is a lot of people who thought they really wanted to do theoretical astro/HEP, but then experience it and find out their interests actually lie in condensed matter or optics.

 

[N5soulkishin]

HEy umm Chill_Factor, are you physicist?

 

[chill_factor]

HEy umm Chill_Factor, are you physicist?

I am a graduate student in physics. why do you ask?

 

[Rika]

Many, myself included, did research in more practical and what we hoped was more marketable areas. My lab was actually half chemists and half physicists so most of us were marketable to industry. Not to do science really though, to do engineering and be technicians.

That's the reality through. Doesn't matter if it's academia or industry, HEP or solid state. You do a lot of grunt work.

If you want to have creative job in which you can show your individual skills - avoid science at any cost. It's not that in science there is no creativity at all. But it's a small margin comparing to the grunt work that you need to do.

In that regard being scientist is more like being an accountant rather than being an artist.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

As Einstein is quoted:
"Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it."

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

 

[N5soulkishin]

Thank you everyone for your input. in retrospect, the truth hurts, especialy for my misguided view of being a scientist. again, thanks alot

 

[atyy]

Thank you everyone for your input. in retrospect, the truth hurts, especialy for my misguided view of being a scientist. again, thanks alot

Lots of other jobs involve science. Also, science itself involves a lot of politics and management. The Higgs boson could have been found 20 years ago, but it needed the political will to fund the experiements. Also, the experiments need the cooperation of many scientists, so good management was needed. You can find all these elements in jobs outside of "science" too. Video games, for example, really helped science - they caused GPUs to be invented:)